Patterico's Pontifications

8/31/2019

Roman Polanski Receives Standing Ovation At Venice Film Festival

Filed under: General — Dana @ 6:54 pm



[guest post by Dana]

This, in spite of the unraveling horror show that is Jeffrey Epstein and his countless sexual assaults on untold numbers of minor females. I just can’t even. First, a brief reminder of what Polanski did:

On March 10, 1977, Polanski, then 43, invited 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Geimer) to the Los Angeles home of pal Jack Nicholson for a photo shoot. After plying Gailey with glasses of champagne and half a Quaalude, she alleged that she felt “dizzy… like things were kind of blurry sometimes. I was having trouble with my coordination, like walking and stuff.” She then claimed that Polanski placed her on a bed and performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex on her—ignoring her repeated pleas for him to stop. “I was mostly just on and off saying, ‘No, stop.’ But I wasn’t fighting really because I, you know, there was no one else there and I had no place to go,” she later testified.

Although not in attendance, the audience at the Venice Film Festival was wowed by Polanski and his new film. And as they gave the director a five-minute standing ovation, #MeToo gasped its last breath:

The Venice Film Festival played host to an uncomfortable scene this weekend, as director and convicted sex offender Roman Polanski garnered rapturous applause for his new film, J’Accuse. (English title: An Officer and a Spy. Polanski—who fled the United States decades ago and was expelled from the Motion Picture Academy in 2018—did not receive the applause in person, though journalists reportedly cheered co-producer Luca Barbareschi’s assertion that the event was “a film festival, not a moral trial.”

Vulture documented the strange scene, which featured cast member Emmanuelle Seigner (also Polanski’s third wife) and star Louis Garrel sharing nothing but praise for the absent Polanski’s direction. Co-star Jean Dujardin reportedly wished all actors “the good fortune of one day working with Polanski;” attempts from journalists to reference Polanski’s criminal history were met with both shutdowns from producers and further applause.

In later years, a number of women came forward with their own accusations that Polanski had sexually assaulted them as well. The three women claim they were ages 10, 15 and 16 years old when Polanski assaulted them.

Polanski, in a recent interview with a French media outlet, said that the “persecution” he has faced from people inspired him while he worked on the film:

…J’Accuse chronicles the early 20th century “Dreyfus Affair,” in which Alfred Dreyfus (played by Garrel in the film), a Jewish officer in the French Army, was fraudulently convicted of giving military secrets to the Germans, sentenced to lifetime imprisonment, and banished to a prison island. (He was later exonerated and freed.) Polanski made no secret of parallels to his own conviction in a recent interview with French writer Pascal Bruckner, who called the allegations “present-day neo-feminist McCarthyism.”

“In the story, I sometimes find moments I have experienced myself, I can see the same determination to deny the facts and condemn me for things I have not done,” Polanski said in the interview, which was included in official film notes distributed to press. “Most of the people who harass me do not know me and know nothing about the case. . . . I must admit that I am familiar with many of the workings of the apparatus of persecution shown in the film, and that has clearly inspired me.”

The victim’s grand jury testimony tells us pretty much what we need to know about Roman Polnski: (Warning: very graphic)

A. Then he lifted up my legs and went in through my anus.

Q. What do you mean by that?

A. He put his penis in my butt.

. . . .

Q. Do you know whether he had a climax?

A. Yes.

Q. And how do you know that?

A. Because I could kind of feel it and it was in my underwear. It was in my underwear. It was on my butt and stuff.

Q. When you say that, you believe that he climaxed in your anus?

A. Yes.

Q. What does climax mean?

A. That his semen came out.

Q. Do you know what semen is?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you see some semen or feel some semen?

A. I felt it.

Q. Where did you feel it?

A. I felt it on the back of my behind and in my underwear when I put them on.

Contrary to Polanski’s claim, I think we all pretty much know that what he did to that child. And what I know compels me to never, ever watch one of his films, let alone give him a standing ovation.People who choose to support Polanski and give him standing ovations, demonstrate an obscenely elitist indecency. For if you are willing to ignore and/or rationalize the sexual assault of a child for the sake of “art,” then you are an indecent person. Maybe the audience wasn’t bothered by the suffering of a child because they believe that the resulting art would not have been possible had it not been for the suffering that Polanski has endured in the aftermath. Some people are able to separate art from the morality (or lack therein) of the artist. To me, if the artist has inflicted a destructive act of violence on a child, I will never be one of those people.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Next Up: Fox Business Host Lying About Trump Lying

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:55 am



[guest post by Dana]

Earlier this week I wrote about Trump 2020 campaign spokesperson Kayleigh McEnany lying about Trump lying. On the heels of McEnany’s comments, and clearly evidencing that he didn’t get the memo that Fox News doesn’t work for Trump, the network’s business host, Stuart Varney, humiliated himself on air when he too denied that Trump lies. Peak irony: he was called out on his lie by lying Joe Walsh:

During a heated interview with Republican presidential candidate Joe Walsh, Fox Business host Stuart Varney said he does not believe President Trump has lied to the country.

The former GOP congressman told Varney on Friday that Trump “lies virtually every time he opens his mouth,” prompting Varney to ask Walsh to give him an example.

“I will give you an example just from yesterday and even his staff, Stuart, admitted that he lied this week when he said there were high-level phone calls between the United States and China. Trump said that repeatedly. His staff came out yesterday and admittedly, admitted that the president of the United States lied to the world to manipulate the markets. I have a problem with that,” Walsh said.

“That’s not a lie. Let’s not get technical,” Varney replied. “If the man said, and he did, that high-level talks had been held with China, that is not a lie. They were held with China.”

“Stuart, he said there were high-level phone calls with Chinese officials. His staff admitted that was not true, that he lied in order to manipulate the market,” Walsh said.

Walsh then asked Varney if he believes Trump has ever lied.

“He exaggerates and spins,” he replied.

“Okay. Do you believe he’s ever told the American people a lie?” Walsh asked, to which Varney gave a curt “No.”

Varney then turned the tables on Walsh at the end of their conversation (not seen in the video), and asked Walsh whether he lied when he claimed that President Obama was a Muslim. Walsh was forced to admit that it was a lie, and added that he’s apologized for it.

Not seeing a lot of daylight between Trump and Walsh, two peas in a pod. All of which makes me wonder why Republicans would look to Walsh as their savior in 2020, because if you loathe and revile one lying bigot, why would you promote another lying bigot?

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Christian Dior’s Latest Ad For “Sauvage” Men’s Fragrance Under Attack

Filed under: General — Dana @ 7:52 am



[guest post by Dana]

Taking a break from the dumb world of politics, let’s look at the dumb world of social justice. Specifically, the new, cringe-inducing Christian Dior ad for the men’s fragrance, Sauvage, starring Johnny Depp:

As you can imagine, the ad was attacked for cultural appropriation: Dior pulled the from YouTube within six hours of it being uploaded.

Dior is facing backlash for promoting its perfume line Sauvage with an advertisement featuring Native American imagery.

The fashion brand teased the ad, which stars actor Johnny Depp, on Twitter on Friday as “an authentic journey deep into the Native American soul in a sacred, founding and secular territory”. It has since deleted the tweet and all references to the campaign on social media.

[…]

Scholars and critics have responded that the campaign is racist and a clear cut case of appropriation.

“It is so deeply offensive and racist,” said Crystal Echo Hawk, CEO of the media watchdog group IllumiNative. “I don’t know how anyone in 2019 can think a campaign like this can go down well.”

[…]

The French name of the fragrance line translates to “wild” or “savage” in English.

“These types of tropes, these types of narratives about Native people as savages they do real harm,” Echo Hawk said. “And fuel racism.”

And more criticism:

“Honestly, I couldn’t help but laugh because this drips with irony – every single aspect of it,” said Dallas Goldtooth, an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network, an environmental and economic justice group. “But I’m also upset and angry at the same time.”

The video “romanticized Native Americans as relics from the past”, Goldtooth said. “It’s deplorable that Dior thought this was appropriate.”

“It has huge connotations. ‘Sauvage’ was to say we were dirty, uncivilized, that we had no culture. So this is not good at all. This is a racial slur for any Indigenous French-speaking person,” said Melissa Mollen-Dupuis, the co-founder of Idle No More’s branch in Quebec.

“It’s as if they used the N-word to promote a perfume.”

But here’s the thing: Dior worked in collaboration with Native Americans on the project as well as having Native American fancy war dancer Canku One Star, a Rosebud Sioux, and Canadian actor Tanaya Beatty, descended from the Da’Naxda’xw Nation in British Columbia, appear in the ad. One can reasonably assume they were not forced to be in the ad, and that they were compensated at a fair rate of pay per the terms of their contracts. Also noted: Depp gives a nod to Shawnee guitarist Link Wray as he riffs on Wray’s well-known Rumble.

Moreover:

In Dior’s press notes, and in an accompanying behind-the-scenes video, the company pointed out that Depp and director Jean-Baptiste Mondino collaborated with Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO), an advocacy group for Native American people, “in order to respect indigenous cultures, values and heritage.”

Adrienne Keene, [an assistant professor at Brown University, who writes the “Native Appropriations” blog and is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation], points out that AIO was founded by LaDonna Harris, who, Keene wrote, “has worked tirelessly for Native folks throughout her career, and done incredible work.” Keene also notes that Harris courted controversy among Native Americans in 2012 by adopting Depp into her family, giving him a Comanche name, “Mah-Woo-Meh,” or “shape shifter.”

In reading about this kerfuffle, I noticed that a number of outlets neglected to mention that LaDonna Harris’s daughter, who is also AIO’s executive director, Laura Harris, said: “the [‘Sauvage’] name is the name, and we knew it would be controversial.”

Eyes wide open.

I know Indians who are offended by the ad because of the cultural appropriation. I’m not offended by it other than on an aesthetic level because it is some seriously over-the-top-cringe-inducing awfulness, primarily because of Johnny Depp. If the Dior people had been smart about this, they would have scratched everything – especially Depp – and simply presented the gorgeous Canku One Star dancing on the red cliffs. Now that would be a breathtaking ad.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)
–Dana

8/30/2019

Trial Date Finally Set for Alleged 9/11 Mastermind

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:39 pm



[guest post by Dana]

A trial date has finally been set for the accused Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

Alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and four other accused plotters will go on trial on Jan. 11, 2021, a U.S. military judge said Friday, according to the Office of Military Commissions.

KSM, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ’Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi all face the death penalty for their alleged roles in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Mohammad and his co-defendants are charged with crimes including terrorism, hijacking and 2,976 counts of murder for their alleged roles planning and providing logistical support to the Sept. 11 plot. They could get the death penalty if convicted at the military commission…

The capital case trial will take place at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The particulars:

The 2021 trial date — which will come more than 19 years after the attacks occurred — was included in a trial conduct order issued by the presiding judge in the case, Air Force Col. W. Shane Cohen, who set a series of deadlines for the case.

The order also includes a list of materials the prosecutors must provide defense lawyers before Oct. 1.

Cohen, who is the third judge since 2012 to preside over the the long-delayed case, took over the case in June.

Mohammed’s lawyers believe that their client has suffered brain damage and therefore should not face the death penalty:

Mohammed’s lawyers have argued brain scans prove the former al-Qaida leader suffered traumatic brain injuries at the hands of the CIA, which could cause the court to spare him the death penalty. They have been seeking for years to conduct more studies.

This: Witnesses have died, lawyers have grown old and victims’ families patience has been sorely tested.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Patterico Talks to Bob Murphy About Plea Bargains and Anarchy

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:00 am



Anarchocapitalist economist Bob Murphy had me on his podcast recently, and the episode just came out. It’s about two hours long. We talk about Murphy’s view of plea bargains as an inherently corrupt enterprise, and about my objections to his vision of a world without a government-run criminal justice system. Listen to the podcast at this link or by simply pressing play below:

As always, I speak for myself and not for my office.

Regular readers know I am a big fan of Bob Murphy. Bob and Tom Woods run a podcast called “Contra Krugman” that dissects the errors of New York Times columnist Paul Krugman every week. I told you about the podcast in this 2015 post which featured this hilarious video which Murphy recorded years ago to taunt Krugman into a debate that never happened:

Murphy is also hilarious as the zombie in the “Interview with a Zombie” video with Tom Woods which I told you about in 2016 and which you can watch here:

As funny as these videos are, you’ll be shocked to learn that comedy is just a side gig for Murphy, whose primary profession is being an economist. He’s a free market economist and a damned good one. He teaches two classes on the History of Economic Thought at Liberty Classroom, where I am a lifetime member. (Become a member yourself, here!) He wrote, with physician Doug McGuff, an excellent book called The Primal Prescription (which I told you about here) which is the best explanation I have seen anywhere of the problems with the health care system in general and ObamaCare in particular. I have also written posts summarizing his book “Choice” (itself a summary of Mises’s Human Action, and yes, I still owe you the last five posts of that series). A collection of Murphy essays about Krugman is a great way to learn about free-market economics. Murphy wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism and The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal. He has writen study guides for Mises’s Human Action and The Theory of Money and Credit, and for Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State, so you can get the main points of those tomes without investing the time necessary to read them all the way through. I have read all of this from Murphy and more, and recommend it all.

In other words, I am something of a Bob Murphy stan. So I was thrilled when Bob invited me on the show.

In addition to being a free market economist (in his podcast intro, it sounds like the announcer is calling him a “Communist” rather than an “economist” which is something I tease him about at one point in our discussion) Bob is something of a philosopher who promotes a frankly anarchist view of society. Now I used to think of anarchists as those guys who run around in the streets breaking windows and lighting things on fire, but Bob’s vision is lawlessness without the shattered glass and arson. (Of course it’s my view that vandalism and arson, like other crimes, would be rampant in Bob’s hypothetical society, but that’s not his goal.) In the second part of the podcast, we discuss some questions I had for Bob that were intended to challenge some of the assumptions that underpin his views. So that’s the treat you’ll get if you muddle through this whole thing.

The first part of the podcast is devoted to a discussion about plea bargains. Bob had put out a podcast in May that laid out his view that plea bargains are inherently corrupt, and I wrote him to challenge him in (I hope) a respectful manner. Somehow this led to the invitation for me to appear on his show. Bob says in his intro that he liked the way the discussion turned out, and so do I. As the discussion progressed, I realized that I was getting to explain some things about plea bargains and the criminal justice system that are second nature for me, as a 22-year prosecutor, but that are not necessarily known to the general public.

My approach was not “you and your views are ridiculous” but rather a view that acknowledges that Murphy has some genuine and valid concerns about plea bargains, but claims that those concerns need to be placed in their proper context. I argued that our system is largely peopled by good people trying to do the right thing, and that we have protections in place for defendants that make our system quite different from its portrayal in the media.

It’s not two people yelling at each other, but two people having a discussion. (Indeed, Murphy said at the outset that it would not be a debate, and I think I should explain my joke in response, because it’s kind of an inside joke for Contra Krugman listeners. Bob and Tom Woods recently had a debate on a cruise that they run that grew out of their podcast. The deal was that the loser of the debate would have to shave his beard. All’s I’m saying is, Murphy still has his beard. So that’s the explanation for the beard-shaving reference I made.) If you like people yelling at each other on TV, you won’t like this. If you like a calm discussion between two people with different views who treat each other with respect, you just might enjoy this.

I’ll close this long post with an observation similar to what I closed with on the podcast. I’m a classical liberal in the mold of Ludwig von Mises who believes in limited government. Bob is an anarchocapitalist in the mold of Murray Rothbard who believes in no government. These are different views, but sometimes the two sides seem like the Judean People’s Front and the People’s Front of Judea:

We both believe in far smaller government than that advocated by the crazy Democrats running for President — or that presided over by Donald Trump, for that matter. I’d like to see more collaboration and cooperation between libertarians of Murphy’s type and classical liberals of my type. I hope this conversation serves as an example to show that we can all just get along.

Thanks to Bob for the opportunity.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

8/29/2019

Oh, So That’s What He Meant

Filed under: General — JVW @ 7:38 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Here is a companion piece to Dana’s excellent post from earlier this afternoon. Remember Joe Biden’s laughable gaffe three weeks back?

It turns out that maybe there is something to the notion that Dinosaur Joe does prefer “truth” over facts. Jack Crowe at National Review Online has the story:

During a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday, Joe Biden fabricated an emotional story about pinning a medal on a reluctant Navy captain in honor of his daring attempt to rescue a downed comrade in Afghanistan.

Addressing a crowd of over 400, Biden recalled how the captain rappelled down a 60-foot ravine under fire to rescue the body of a fallen American soldier only to resist when then-vice president Biden tried to pin a Silver Star on his chest to honor his efforts.

“He said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing!’ ” Biden shouted, recounting the apocryphal event. “’Do not pin it on me, sir! Please, sir. Do not do that! He died. He died!’”

“This is the God’s truth,” he added. “My word as a Biden.”

“God’s truth.” “My word as a Biden.” Interesting constructions, those. Now, as Paul Harvey liked to say, the rest of the story, as it appears in the Washington Post:

Biden visited Kunar province in 2008 as a U.S. senator, not as vice president. The service member who performed the celebrated rescue that Biden described was a 20-year-old Army specialist, not a much older Navy captain. And that soldier, Kyle J. White, never had a Silver Star, or any other medal, pinned on him by Biden. At a White House ceremony six years after Biden’s visit, White stood at attention as President Barack Obama placed a Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award for valor, around his neck.

This is nothing new for the former Senator turned Vice President, as the WaPo traces the story of Dinosaur Joe’s fable back to the 2016 campaign when he took to the stump on behalf of Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. The 2016 version of the speech was set in Iraq, featured an Army Captain pulling a dead soldier out of a burning Humvee, but once again included the reluctant and anguished hero trying to refuse the honor. Later in the campaign, the then VP stitched the two stories together in his own inimitable way:

Three weeks later, stumping for Jason Kander, an Afghan War veteran running for the Senate in Missouri, Biden told both the Iraq and Afghanistan versions back to back in a single speech. First it was the Navy captain who rappelled down the ravine in Kunar. “He died. He died. I don’t deserve it,” Biden quoted the medal recipient as saying. Then he segued to the Army officer, the burning Humvee and Iraq. “This is the God’s truth,” Biden said. “As I approached him in a full formation . . . ‘Sir,’ he whispered to me, ‘Sir, please don’t. Please don’t pin that on me. He died, Sir. He died. I didn’t do my job. He died.’”

The Bezos Bugle being the Bezos Bugle, they naturally try to let Slow Joe off easy at the end, wondering if the current President’s impulse for tall-tales and urban myths might make voters more understanding of Mr. Biden’s penchant for malarky and flapdoodle. We’ve reached peak mindlessness when the debate boils down to “our candidate’s bullshit is less offensive than your candidate’s bullshit,” but welcome to 2019. They also track down an army enlisted man to whom VP Biden presented a bronze star, and manage to pull a quote from him that is favorable to the old codger.

But I think the moral of the story is that “my word as a Biden” is pretty much worth squat.

– JVW

Alabama Governor Kay Ivey: I’m Really Sorry I Wore Black Face In College Skit

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:41 pm



[guest post by Dana]

At this point, shouldn’t we just assume that every white politician in the Deep South who is over 40 years of age wore black face during their college years at least one time? Because, you know, it sure seems like a thing:

Gov. Kay Ivey on Thursday issued an apology for appearing in a racist sketch during her time as an undergraduate at Auburn University in the 1960s.

Audio surfaced of a 1967 interview given by Ivey and her then-fiance, Ben LaRavia, in which LaRavia recalled a party at Auburn’s Baptist Student Union. Ivey participated in at least one sketch at the party, where LaRavia said she wore blackface.

“She had on a blue coveralls, she had put some black paint all over her face, and we were acting out this skit called Cigar Butts,” LaRavia said in the interview, which the governor’s office released with Ivey’s statement. “I could not go into a lengthy explanation, but to say the least, I think this skit, it did not require a lot of talent, as far as verbal talent. But it did require a lot of physical acting, such as crawling on the floor looking for cigar butts and things like this.”

LaRavia says Ivey got a “big reaction” from the audience. Ivey then says “that was just my role for the evening” before turning the discussion to a story about being unable to remember a joke for the end of the show.

Although Ivey doesn’t remember being in the skit, she nonetheless apologized for her participation:

“[I] sincerely did not remember the sketch” but said she would “not deny what is obvious.”

“While some may attempt to excuse this as acceptable behavior for a college student during the mid-1960s, that is not who I am today, and it is not what my Administration represents all these years later.”

“As such, I fully acknowledge — with genuine remorse — my participation in a skit like that back when I was a senior in college.

Ivey informed the leaders of the Alabama Legislature to express her regrets. Senate Minority Leader Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, who is African American, said after Ivey called him to personally apologize, that:

If the governor “could take ownership of it,” they could move forward.

Dear Gov. Ivey,

It’s okay. Nobody cares. Not really. Sure, you may have to endure a few difficult days or weeks of criticism and media scrutiny, but when the hullabaloo dies down, you’ll still be the sitting Governor.

*waves at Gov. Northam*

Oh.

Wait.

Sweet Home Alabama, I forgot…

Ignore what I just said…

…you know, Gov. Ivey, it’s just a crying shame about that pesky “R” after your name because, little lady, you’re really screwed. But be sure to pick up a copy of Roots anyway…

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Trump Team Lies About Trump’s Lies

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:21 pm



[guest post by Dana]

That Trump lies is nothing new, we’ve seen it over and over again. But it’s interesting to see the lengths his people are now going to lie about his lies:

On Wednesday night, Trump reelection campaign press secretary Kayleigh McEnany did an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo. It was, uh, contentious. But one part of the back-and-forth between the two really… stood out:

CUOMO: You don’t think this President has lied to the American people?

MCENANY: Let me finish, Chris.
CUOMO: You–

MCENANY: No, I don’t think the President has lied.
CUOMO: –have to answer that question, first.

MCENANY: I don’t think the President has lied.
CUOMO: He has never lied to the American people?

MCENANY: No, I don’t think the President has lied.

Here is the relevant portion of the exchange:

This exchange comes after White House communications director Stephanie Grisham told the Washington Post explained why Trump’s lies aren’t lies and that people are just too dimwitted to grasp the unique, nuanced way in which he communicates:

“I don’t think they’re lies. … I think the President communicates in a way that some people, especially the media, aren’t necessarily comfortable with. A lot of times they take him so literally. I know people will roll their eyes if I say he was just kidding or was speaking in hypotheticals, but sometimes he is. What I’ve learned about him is that he loves this country and he’s not going to lie to this country.”

Stupid people, ignore the lies, he loves America!

We are also reminded that this sort of defensive bending of the truth by the administration is nothing new:

Kellyanne Conway made this same argument in the earliest days of Trump’s presidency, when she told NBC’s Chuck Todd this about the false claim that Trump’s inauguration drew the largest crowd ever: “You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving — Sean Spicer, our press secretary — gave alternative facts.”

You can read the linked piece in its entirety to see specific instances of the President’s lies.

I just want to leave you with this one because it happened as recently as two days ago: Trump falsely claimed that Melania Trump had gotten to know Kim Jong Un:

“The first lady has gotten to know Kim Jong Un, and I think she would agree with me he is a man with a country that has tremendous potential,” Trump said.

Melania Trump was not present for any of Trump’s three meetings with Kim Jong Un, and there is no evidence she has ever spoken to Kim.

Grisham addressed the stupid people in the room who can’t seem to grasp Trump’s “truths”:

“President Trump confides in his wife on many issues including the detailed elements of his strong relationship with Chairman Kim — and while the First Lady hasn’t met him, the President feels like she’s gotten to know him too.”

Bend it like Trump.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

Inspector General Report Out on Comey

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:19 am



The document can be read here.

I’ve not had a chance to read it and will consequently not comment on it now.

UPDATE: Comey appears to be treating the report as some kind of vindication:

My initial scan of the report suggests it is no vindication at all. Far from it. The report appears to fault Comey for disclosing “sensitive investigative information, obtained during the course of FBI employment, in order to achieve a personally desired outcome.” The report says that Comey “set a dangerous example for the over 35,000 current FBI employees” who have similar access to non-public information.

Donald Trump’s tiny fingers are no doubt hovering over the keys on his iPhone as we speak, but no official word yet from the Twittermeister as of the time of this update.

8/28/2019

President Trump: Fox Is Dead To Me, Time To Shop For New Media Outlet That Won’t Upset Me

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:59 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Seeing the Democratic National Committee’s communications director Xochitl Hinojosa discussing the upcoming Democratic primary debate while she was a guest on Fox News was just one Democrat too far for President Trump this morning. He tweeted his tantrum because that’s what Presidents of the United States do:

While Trump throwing a hissy fit is nothing new, this seems to be the final straw with Fox. They have betrayed him, and betrayed the “special relationship” between the President, his supporters and the media giant. What a long, strange trip it’s been, too, when we look back to the campaign days when Fox gave then-candidate Trump more airtime than God. And after he became the President, Trump could count on Fox and the company’s on-air personalities to make him look good.

Trump isn’t wasting time shedding big, sloppy tears over the breakup, though. Nope. He’s already shopping for a new media outlet that will do what he wants:

“…isn’t working for us anymore”??? Well, we all knew it was that kind of a relationship, but it’s nonetheless surprising to hear the President admit it. Britt Hume hit the nail on the head with his spot-on response:

Other Fox personalities also pushed back on the President’s comments.

Obviously, no news media outlet should be in the back pocket of a sitting president. Nor do they “work” for any president. Or at least, they shouldn’t. One doesn’t have to spell out all the incredible problems with viewing the interactions of a president and a major news outlet in the way. Whether it’s Fox News for President Trump or the MSM for a Democratic president, it’s wrong, and this unethical symbiotic relationship has only helped to further polarize the nation. We could all point to examples of both Fox and the MSM couching, covering, and conveniently omitting something critical and sneaking in something just to massage the message coming out of the White House. I see this breakup as a good thing.

No doubt there are other news groups interested in taking Fox’s place, and ready to compromise any integrity and journalistic principles if necessary. And there is a president willing to make it worth their effort.

I think this is true:

Axios’ Sara Fischer [said] that Trump was playing to a “fringe culture” of rabid supporters whom the president hopes would help push Fox News to intensify its already largely pro-Trump coverage.

Too bad the big breakup is happening while the run for 2020 is picking up steam. Trump better work fast. He won’t be able to count on his buds to push him right into victory.

–Dana

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3544 secs.